1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 32,895,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 7, 2018 to April 25, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work of constructing a new house (hereinafter “instant house”) on the land of 994 square meters on the land owned by the Plaintiff’s spouse C, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”) prior to D, 117,000,000 (including farmland diversion charges of KRW 12,00,000) and for the construction period from December 5, 2016 to March 10, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

After completing the preparation of civil engineering design, second floor housing (the first floor 20th floor, the second floor 10th floor), and the construction design drawings of warehouses, permission for diversion of farmland, etc., the Defendant completed the construction report under C on February 6, 2017 based on the above design drawings, and started the construction work of new housing in this case.

C. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant KRW 52,00,000,000, the down payment of KRW 52,000,000 on December 9, 2016, and the intermediate payment of KRW 40,00,000 on February 22, 2017, and KRW 5,00,000 out of the remainder on March 31, 2017.

However, the Defendant did not complete the instant house by the beginning of April 2017, with the agreed construction period set forth in the instant contract, and completed the instant house at the construction site around that time.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-9, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Since the Plaintiff, the cause of the principal lawsuit, rescinded the instant contract due to the delay and interruption of the Defendant’s construction, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages equivalent to KRW 39,215,000 for unjust enrichment (= KRW 20,260,000 for KRW 20,260,000 for KRW 105,000 for 05,000 for 00 x 0.629), and for the Plaintiff’s storage expenses incurred due to the delay of the Defendant’s construction.

B. As seen earlier, the lower court’s determination on the claim for unjust enrichment was as follows: (a) the Defendant suspended the construction of the instant house; and (b) written evidence Nos. 10-20, 23-30; and (c) E Research Institute of this Court.